Announcements

Fluid forum view allows members only to get right to the meat of this community; the topics. You can toggle between your preferred forum view just below to the left on the main forum entrance. You will see three icons. Try them out and see what you prefer.
Fluid view allows you, if you are a signed up member, to see the newest topic posts in either all forums (select none or all) or in just your favorite forums (select the ones you want to see when you come to Fishing Minnesota). It keeps and in real time with respect to Topic posts and lets YOU SELECT YOUR FAVORITE FORUMS. It can make things fun and easy. This is especially true for less experienced visitors raised on social media. If you, as a members want more specific topics, you can even select a single forum to view.
Let us take a look at fluid view in action. We will then break it down and explain how it works in more detail.
The video shows the topic list and the forum filter box. As you can see, it is easy to change the topic list by changing the selected forums. This view replaces the traditional list of categories and forums.
Of course, members only can change the view to better suit your way of browsing.
You will notice a “grid” option. We have moved the grid forum theme setting into the main forum settings. This makes it an option for members only to choose.
This screenshot also shows the removal of the forum breadcrumb in fluid view mode. Fluid view remembers your last forum selection so you don’t lose your place when you go back to the listing.
The benefit of this feature is easy to see. It removes a potential barrier of entry for members only. It puts the spotlight on topics themselves, and not the hierarchical forum structure. You as a member will enjoy viewing many forums at once and switching between them without leaving the page.
We hope that fluid view, the new functionality is an asset that you enjoy .

RECEIVE THE GIFTS MEMBERS SHARE WITH YOU HERE...THEN...CREATE SOMETHING TO ENCHANT OTHERS THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE

You know what we all love...

When you enchant people, you fill them with delight and yourself in return. Have Fun!!!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Dtro, thanks for posting the info on emailing Gerry Johnson at the DNR. I'll be finding out the comment totals in a week or so and shoot you an email for posting. Just not enough time to be everywhere!

Here's my meeting notes...that were edited for accuracy by the DNR.

Public St Croix Reg Meeting 10/22/2008

Presentation by The Area Fisheries Supervisor (East Side) Mr. Jerry Johnson and Al Stevens from Lakes and Stream Management Planning.

Also in attendance was Mr. Rod Ramsell who's partial duties were described as "Lead Worker of the Lower St Croix River Sturgeon Tagging Project ".

The presentation walked us through etiquette of the meeting, history of the Lake Sturgeon, the data that our DNR has collected since 2003 and why the proposed rules were being adopted.

Most of the info in the presentation was well known facts to us Lake Sturgeon fishers.

LKS are very long-lived animals, live to 150 years (on record)

Research Literature indicates that Females are about 24 years old before they spawn.

Females only spawn every 4 to 6 years,

LKS are very sensitive to changes in their environment such as destruction to spawning areas and degraded water quality.

The MN DNR estimates less than 4000 LKS in the Lower St Croix River.

At 50 inches, the literature indicates that LKS typically are sexually mature and have spawned once. East Metro staff are of the opinion that females in the less productive Lower St. Croix River System are closer to 55" before spawning takes place

Some of the info that was new to me was:

• Information received from recaptured fish shows that St Croix River LKS grow about 6/10ths to 9/10ths per year.

• LKS regulation in 1947 were one fish per day with a 30" minimum.

• LKS regulations in 1968 was one fish per day with a 40" minimum.

• LKS regulations in 1992 became one fish per YEAR with a 50" minimum.

Mr. Johnson stated that he/they will be proposing a LKS telemetry study this winter (for next fiscal year budget cycle) for the Lower St Croix.

There seemed to be some confusion on where the $5. LKS tag fee was being used for. To clarify, it goes to the Fish & Game Fund. It was never meant to be used specifically for Lake Sturgeon Reseach...but a portion goes to the of tracking fish taken from the Two River Systems. Revenue from the harvest tag goes into the Game and Fish fund (administered by DNR), not the General fund (the statewide, agency wide fund).

Mr. Johnson was asked what portion of the comments were against the 60" minimum size for taking St Croix Sturgeon. His response was...to date, none (however, we received one comment from the meeting opposed to the increase).

Bk Edit: this has changed over night, in part by the FM members!)

It was pretty evident, at least to me, that the dozen or so sturgeon fishers that turned out for the public meeting, were against shortening the season, they didn't care if the minimum was set to 60", but did prefer a total catch and release season.

Not only did the MN DNR's own data support moving toward catch and release, (I don’t remember presenting any data that could be interpreted this way) in my opinion, the DNR's own expert, the biologist with the most hands on experience with the St Croix LKS said he supports the 60 minimum, and also would support catch and release. He went on to say that (in his opinion) keeping the season the same length or even making it longer, with the proposed 4 week harvest season (September) and a 2 week (or 4 week) catch and release only season (October), likely would not hurt the fishery and he could support it.

Lastly, Mr. Ramsell did say that the meeting was about adopting the proposal as stated, not catch and release or keeping the season the same/or lengthening it.

Although I'm an optimist, I will be shocked if our MN laws do not reflect the wishes of the WI rule makers for the 2009 season.

One thing I did learn tonight. I now can see why we have two sets of rules on the MN/WI border waters.

It's because of people like me.

I don't want to give up my two weeks of fishing because of the state of WI...and I'm willing to have two sets of rules to keep them. They can have 4 weeks of 1 fish over 60 inches and I'll take my 6 or even 8 weeks of catch and release.

Personally, I want to thank Jerry Johnson, Al Stevens and Rod Ramsell. Yours was not an easy job tonight, but you handled it professionally as one would expect.

Our DNR has done a [PoorWordUsage] good job is creating many trophy fishing opportunities within our waters. I trust they will make the best decision for all of us in this case too.

Yes. But on a post framed building the only think I ever see is a thickened footing and not a foundation to the frost line. A major benefit of post framing is that you install the posts below the frost line so the need for a concrete foundation below the frost line is not needed. If I am understanding the question correctly.

I think they’re more looking at the footings requirement, aren’t they? Thus the reason for getting the poles below the frost line?
Its the township’s responsibility to figure this out and you have the right to ask them to cite the code they’re following.
I used to live in Isanti County and dealt with a building inspector from my township on the construction of my detached garage. Things weren’t very strict to say the least.
We built everything by the current UBC code, so I’d suggest first getting a copy of the current version of that since this building will actually be your home. Don’t take unnecessary shortcuts to save a few bucks up front. You’ll eventually regret it.
Reading your plans for the slab, it sounds pretty good. There are plenty of slab homes out there built the way you describe. What you don’t want is movement.
I’m not an expert by any means but I think footings on your slab wouldn’t be a bad idea and sinking your poles that deep should be a requirement. If you don’t do footings, at least pour your slab thicker on the perimeter to hold it better.
Your local Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) can be more restrictive than code, but not less. So if it’s defined in the UBC, you have to do at least that much.

I’ve personally been on both sides of this.
Used to love getting as much air as possible over driveways but I never understood gunning it on the other side after crossing. I guess some are just mild adrenaline junkies.
I quit doing that for one, because it’s illegal, and two, not safe if the homeowner happens to be leaving or getting the mail at the time.
Now that I have a posted trail going over my driveway, I find it just rude, obnoxious and irritating to deal with 4 wheelers and sleds gunning it over the gravel and making ruts and eroding my base to the point of it being an expense to either plow and pack the class 5 back in place or spend the money to pave it. I hate having to bounce over two ruts with my trailers and whatever I’m hauling in them too.
I think that’s the worst part for me. Either jump it or be mellow on the throttle the entire way over.
I’ve seen trail groomers go around driveways before, making me wonder if that truly is a requirement or they were simply being courteous. But I agree with knoppers, they should not drag over the driveway. Maybe they think they’re taking the snow off for ya. Call the people responsible for the trail and ask them for suggestions.

some people are bad apples that give the sport a bad name, I as a snowmobiler have respect for driveways. FYI driveway approaches are on the public right of way, you may not block them, or place anything that can injure someone. trail groomers actually do you a favor by knocking down the bank, to keep it level. unless your groomer was not well trained, they will not groom over your driveway.